Open to the public universal scientific information exchanges. Real scientists must want a place where we all can meet to disagree on an equal basis. This want is implied by the method required by the objective purpose of science; which is to discover and create a perfect logical picture of reality that we can verify by measures of cause and effect we all can see. These logical structures are called theory(s).
Therefore, logical and observations discrepancies are necessarily what must be used to improve theories. Since scientifically acquired knowledge is for all of us, this requires a place where all possible observers can disagree with each other on an equal basis. This is not how it works in science now.
The theoretical basis for this invention rises out of neoclassical economic theory. This theory's framework of analysis describes logically how any possible kind of ‘affect’ impacts the Quantity of Goods and Services exchanged. This theory is used to define what constraints and physical requirements are needed to build an optimal “Marketplace” for all possible kinds of exchanges over an Internet. Fundamentally these constraints imply that a single physical place can exist that is common to all exchanges.
Theoretical Premise: It can be shown that in a conserved system like an Internet with a finite number of nodes (users) at any time; then there can only be one place where all possible users can meet to disagree at anyone lime, about anything expressed with symbols, e.g. a central switching point in a phone system.
Since time immemorial mankind has unconsciously sought to create a common single meeting place open 24/7 to exchange information and ideas, resolve disagreements, and to exchange all other goods and services from anywhere any of us might be, instantly.
The concept of a common to all meeting place to resolve problems and exchange goods and services is as old as organized societies. In small tribal societies all could meet in the ‘town square’. For larger societies these meetings started with annual or seasonal markets or fairs and over time evolved into markets open year round.
Political meeting places naturally evolved from the public councils of a tribe. The ancient Greek public square where all citizens could meet to discuss and vote on public problems is an example. The New England town meetings are another example.
These political meeting places all had major structural problems. In all of these examples, access was restricted to a small group of privileged people called citizens. They had to rely on essentially face to face contacts. Naturally, those best at small group discussions dominated.
The next problem was that there literally could be no real accurate permanent record of what was said. Instead people had to rely on their fallible memories. Even with writing, the best we could do was shorthand notes made by a secretary. As the Greeks learned, without an accurate record, large groups of people were easily swayed by demagogues and sophists who worked for special interests. With no accurate records, facts and memories could easily be twisted to the advantage of the powerful who had learned from experience to avoid open disagreements.
Suppressing disagreements about the terms of exchange in markets for physical Goods & Services meant such markets would not survive. So, over time, marketplaces necessarily began to reflect some of the logical characteristics of an ideal meeting place for exchange, i.e. a single place where all participants had equal access to the same information affecting these exchanges at the same time, e.g. prices. The problem here was that simultaneity meant that publishing had to be done in a limited physical space so all participants could see and hear one another at the same time.
Exchanging pre-defined goods and services is simple however, compared to exchanging scientific, political, social and other ideas and information. For example, for political discussions we have evolved inconvenient public meetings, conventions, elected representatives to legislatures, and open to the public proposal techniques for citizens to put referendum and initiatives to a vote.
However, putting a referendum or an initiative on the ballot is not easy. A single person, small group, or even relatively large group with a valid complaint or idea will find out that it is very costly in time and money to be heard. This cost, by inspection, eliminates a large number of proposals.
The reason insiders in political, business, and scientific arenas want to block objections to their behavior, policies, and ideas is simple. It is against their personal or group interests. They block disagreements by using three basic techniques:
First, members of establishments see, hear, and speak no evil about each other's mistakes and crimes; ignore disagreements with what they do and say; or when they must respond, they change the subject; or when pushed, they call you names.
Second, they establish expensive, time consuming, multi-step procedures to winnow out the vast majority of objections, e.g. public hearings held at times and places where only paid lobbyists can afford to attend.
Third, there are the pushy ones, who can use all forms of verbal and physical intimidation like getting you fired, physical threats, beatings, and up to murder.
The three reasons they get away with this in public forums are simple:
First, all sides of an issue want to win, so they do not want to explicitly and willingly identify what the other side is disagreeing with them about.
Second, there is no easy to use central public place to record disagreements with insiders or others. With no central public place to record objections on a permanent public record, insiders don't have to respond and so they don't. Its human self interest in action.
Third, no one points out these tactics as I just did above in public. It is necessary to explain what a not do is avoiding identifying disagreements, before you can show or point out to others what these tactics are when they are being used.
Minimizing open disagreements is basic human nature. We are social animals who like to be liked. This makes it especially easy for those who control the “forum” involved, to automatically ignore someone, talk over others, or change the subject.
The Internet when used to conduct public discussions fails to work. Its how public chat rooms and forums are controlled. They use many of the same techniques described above to avoid resolving disagreements. In them, the users are usually anonymous and there is, in my experience, no real verification of who anyone really is. While these “discussions” are usually moderated, no one ever has to reach an agreement to agree or disagree in them. Further, there are almost always exclusionary rules that can be arbitrarily applied by the owners or moderators of these forums to those who are “disagreeable”. These forums have no Rules of Response.